AI Avatar Tools

AI Avatar Tools — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Automated decision-making

Automated decision-making (ADM) is the use of data, machines and algorithms to make decisions in a range of contexts, including public administration, business, health, education, law, employment, transport, media and entertainment, with varying degrees of human oversight or intervention. ADM may involve large-scale data from a range of sources, such as databases, text, social media, sensors, images or speech, that is processed using various technologies including computer software, algorithms, machine learning, natural language processing, artificial intelligence, augmented intelligence and robotics. The increasing use of automated decision-making systems (ADMS) across a range of contexts presents many benefits and challenges to human society requiring consideration of the technical, legal, ethical, societal, educational, economic and health consequences. == Overview == There are different definitions of ADM based on the level of automation involved. Some definitions suggests ADM involves decisions made through purely technological means without human input, such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (Article 22). However, ADM technologies and applications can take many forms ranging from decision-support systems that make recommendations for human decision-makers to act on, sometimes known as augmented intelligence or 'shared decision-making', to fully automated decision-making processes that make decisions on behalf of individuals or organizations without human involvement. Models used in automated decision-making systems can be as simple as checklists and decision trees through to artificial intelligence and deep neural networks (DNN). Since the 1950s computers have gone from being able to do basic processing to having the capacity to undertake complex, ambiguous and highly skilled tasks such as image and speech recognition, gameplay, scientific and medical analysis and inferencing across multiple data sources. ADM is now being increasingly deployed across all sectors of society and many diverse domains from entertainment to transport. An ADM system (ADMS) may involve multiple decision points, data sets, and technologies (ADMT) and may sit within a larger administrative or technical system such as a criminal justice system or business process. == Data == Automated decision-making involves using data as input to be analyzed within a process, model, or algorithm or for learning and generating new models. ADM systems may use and connect a wide range of data types and sources depending on the goals and contexts of the system, for example, sensor data for self-driving cars and robotics, identity data for security systems, demographic and financial data for public administration, medical records in health, criminal records in law. This can sometimes involve vast amounts of data and computing power. === Data quality === The quality of the available data and its ability to be used in ADM systems is fundamental to the outcomes. It is often highly problematic for many reasons. Datasets are often highly variable; corporations or governments may control large-scale data, restricted for privacy or security reasons, incomplete, biased, limited in terms of time or coverage, measuring and describing terms in different ways, and many other issues. For machines to learn from data, large corpora are often required, which can be challenging to obtain or compute; however, where available, they have provided significant breakthroughs, for example, in diagnosing chest X-rays. == ADM technologies == Automated decision-making technologies (ADMT) are software-coded digital tools that automate the translation of input data to output data, contributing to the function of automated decision-making systems. There are a wide range of technologies in use across ADM applications and systems. ADMTs involving basic computational operations Search (includes 1-2-1, 1-2-many, data matching/merge) Matching (two different things) Mathematical Calculation (formula) ADMTs for assessment and grouping: User profiling Recommender systems Clustering Classification Feature learning Predictive analytics (includes forecasting) ADMTs relating to space and flows: Social network analysis (includes link prediction) Mapping Routing ADMTs for processing of complex data formats Image processing Audio processing Natural Language Processing (NLP) Other ADMT Business rules management systems Time series analysis Anomaly detection Modelling/Simulation === Machine learning === Machine learning (ML) involves training computer programs through exposure to large data sets and examples to learn from experience and solve problems. Machine learning can be used to generate and analyse data as well as make algorithmic calculations and has been applied to image and speech recognition, translations, text, data and simulations. While machine learning has been around for some time, it is becoming increasingly powerful due to recent breakthroughs in training deep neural networks (DNNs), and dramatic increases in data storage capacity and computational power with GPU coprocessors and cloud computing. Machine learning systems based on foundation models run on deep neural networks and use pattern matching to train a single huge system on large amounts of general data such as text and images. Early models tended to start from scratch for each new problem however since the early 2020s many are able to be adapted to new problems. Examples of these technologies include Open AI's DALL-E (an image creation program) and their various GPT language models, and Google's PaLM language model program. == Applications == ADM is being used to replace or augment human decision-making by both public and private-sector organisations for a range of reasons including to help increase consistency, improve efficiency, reduce costs and enable new solutions to complex problems. === Debate === Research and development are underway into uses of technology to assess argument quality, assess argumentative essays and judge debates. Potential applications of these argument technologies span education and society. Scenarios to consider, in these regards, include those involving the assessment and evaluation of conversational, mathematical, scientific, interpretive, legal, and political argumentation and debate. === Law === In legal systems around the world, algorithmic tools such as risk assessment instruments (RAI), are being used to supplement or replace the human judgment of judges, civil servants and police officers in many contexts. In the United States RAI are being used to generate scores to predict the risk of recidivism in pre-trial detention and sentencing decisions, evaluate parole for prisoners and to predict "hot spots" for future crime. These scores may result in automatic effects or may be used to inform decisions made by officials within the justice system. In Canada ADM has been used since 2014 to automate certain activities conducted by immigration officials and to support the evaluation of some immigrant and visitor applications. === Economics === Automated decision-making systems are used in certain computer programs to create buy and sell orders related to specific financial transactions and automatically submit the orders in the international markets. Computer programs can automatically generate orders based on predefined set of rules using trading strategies which are based on technical analyses, advanced statistical and mathematical computations, or inputs from other electronic sources. === Business === ==== Continuous auditing ==== Continuous auditing uses advanced analytical tools to automate auditing processes. It can be utilized in the private sector by business enterprises and in the public sector by governmental organizations and municipalities. As artificial intelligence and machine learning continue to advance, accountants and auditors may make use of increasingly sophisticated algorithms which make decisions such as those involving determining what is anomalous, whether to notify personnel, and how to prioritize those tasks assigned to personnel. === Media and entertainment === Digital media, entertainment platforms, and information services increasingly provide content to audiences via automated recommender systems based on demographic information, previous selections, collaborative filtering or content-based filtering. This includes music and video platforms, publishing, health information, product databases and search engines. Many recommender systems also provide some agency to users in accepting recommendations and incorporate data-driven algorithmic feedback loops based on the actions of the system user. Large-scale machine learning language models and image creation programs being developed by companies such as OpenAI and Google in the 2020s have restricted access however they are likely to have widespread application in fields such as advertising, copywriting, stock imagery and gra
Read more →
Detrended correspondence analysis

Detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) is a multivariate statistical technique widely used by ecologists to find the main factors or gradients in large, species-rich but usually sparse data matrices that typify ecological community data. DCA is frequently used to suppress artifacts inherent in most other multivariate analyses when applied to gradient data. == History == DCA was created in 1979 by Mark Hill of the United Kingdom's Institute for Terrestrial Ecology (now merged into Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) and implemented in FORTRAN code package called DECORANA (Detrended Correspondence Analysis), a correspondence analysis method. DCA is sometimes erroneously referred to as DECORANA; however, DCA is the underlying algorithm, while DECORANA is a tool implementing it. == Issues addressed == According to Hill and Gauch, DCA suppresses two artifacts inherent in most other multivariate analyses when applied to gradient data. An example is a time-series of plant species colonising a new habitat; early successional species are replaced by mid-successional species, then by late successional ones (see example below). When such data are analysed by a standard ordination such as a correspondence analysis: the ordination scores of the samples will exhibit the 'edge effect', i.e. the variance of the scores at the beginning and the end of a regular succession of species will be considerably smaller than that in the middle, when presented as a graph the points will be seen to follow a horseshoe shaped curve rather than a straight line ('arch effect'), even though the process under analysis is a steady and continuous change that human intuition would prefer to see as a linear trend. Outside ecology, the same artifacts occur when gradient data are analysed (e.g. soil properties along a transect running between 2 different geologies, or behavioural data over the lifespan of an individual) because the curved projection is an accurate representation of the shape of the data in multivariate space. Ter Braak and Prentice (1987, p. 121) cite a simulation study analysing two-dimensional species packing models resulting in a better performance of DCA compared to CA. == Method == DCA is an iterative algorithm that has shown itself to be a highly reliable and useful tool for data exploration and summary in community ecology (Shaw 2003). It starts by running a standard ordination (CA or reciprocal averaging) on the data, to produce the initial horse-shoe curve in which the 1st ordination axis distorts into the 2nd axis. It then divides the first axis into segments (default = 26), and rescales each segment to have mean value of zero on the 2nd axis - this effectively squashes the curve flat. It also rescales the axis so that the ends are no longer compressed relative to the middle, so that 1 DCA unit approximates to the same rate of turnover all the way through the data: the rule of thumb is that 4 DCA units mean that there has been a total turnover in the community. Ter Braak and Prentice (1987, p. 122) warn against the non-linear rescaling of the axes due to robustness issues and recommend using detrending-by-polynomials only. == Drawbacks == No significance tests are available with DCA, although there is a constrained (canonical) version called DCCA in which the axes are forced by Multiple linear regression to correlate optimally with a linear combination of other (usually environmental) variables; this allows testing of a null model by Monte-Carlo permutation analysis. == Example == The example shows an ideal data set: The species data is in rows, samples in columns. For each sample along the gradient, a new species is introduced but another species is no longer present. The result is a sparse matrix. Ones indicate the presence of a species in a sample. Except at the edges each sample contains five species. The plot of the first two axes of the correspondence analysis result on the right hand side clearly shows the disadvantages of this procedure: the edge effect, i.e. the points are clustered at the edges of the first axis, and the arch effect. == Software == An open source implementation of DCA, based on the original FORTRAN code, is available in the vegan R-package.
Read more →
Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory

Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory (also known as VC theory) was developed during 1960–1990 by Vladimir Vapnik and Alexey Chervonenkis. The theory is a form of computational learning theory, which attempts to explain the learning process from a statistical point of view. == Introduction == VC theory covers at least four parts (as explained in The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory): Theory of consistency of learning processes What are (necessary and sufficient) conditions for consistency of a learning process based on the empirical risk minimization principle? Nonasymptotic theory of the rate of convergence of learning processes How fast is the rate of convergence of the learning process? Theory of controlling the generalization ability of learning processes How can one control the rate of convergence (the generalization ability) of the learning process? Theory of constructing learning machines How can one construct algorithms that can control the generalization ability? VC Theory is a major subbranch of statistical learning theory. One of its main applications in statistical learning theory is to provide generalization conditions for learning algorithms. From this point of view, VC theory is related to stability, which is an alternative approach for characterizing generalization. In addition, VC theory and VC dimension are instrumental in the theory of empirical processes, in the case of processes indexed by VC classes. Arguably these are the most important applications of the VC theory, and are employed in proving generalization. Several techniques will be introduced that are widely used in the empirical process and VC theory. The discussion is mainly based on the book Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics. == Overview of VC theory in empirical processes == === Background on empirical processes === Let ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} be a measurable space. For any measure Q {\displaystyle Q} on ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} , and any measurable functions f : X → R {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbf {R} } , define Q f = ∫ f d Q {\displaystyle Qf=\int fdQ} Measurability issues will be ignored here, for more technical detail see. Let F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} be a class of measurable functions f : X → R {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \mathbf {R} } and define: ‖ Q ‖ F = sup { | Q f | : f ∈ F } . {\displaystyle \|Q\|_{\mathcal {F}}=\sup\{\vert Qf\vert \ :\ f\in {\mathcal {F}}\}.} Let X 1 , … , X n {\displaystyle X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}} be independent, identically distributed random elements of ( X , A ) {\displaystyle ({\mathcal {X}},{\mathcal {A}})} . Then define the empirical measure P n = n − 1 ∑ i = 1 n δ X i , {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} _{n}=n^{-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\delta _{X_{i}},} where δ here stands for the Dirac measure. The empirical measure induces a map F → R {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}\to \mathbf {R} } given by: f ↦ P n f = 1 n ( f ( X 1 ) + . . . + f ( X n ) ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto \mathbb {P} _{n}f={\frac {1}{n}}(f(X_{1})+...+f(X_{n}))} Now suppose P is the underlying true distribution of the data, which is unknown. Empirical Processes theory aims at identifying classes F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} for which statements such as the following hold: uniform law of large numbers: ‖ P n − P ‖ F → n 0 , {\displaystyle \|\mathbb {P} _{n}-P\|_{\mathcal {F}}{\underset {n}{\to }}0,} That is, as n → ∞ {\displaystyle n\to \infty } , | 1 n ( f ( X 1 ) + . . . + f ( X n ) ) − ∫ f d P | → 0 {\displaystyle \left|{\frac {1}{n}}(f(X_{1})+...+f(X_{n}))-\int fdP\right|\to 0} uniformly for all f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} . uniform central limit theorem: G n = n ( P n − P ) ⇝ G , in ℓ ∞ ( F ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {G} _{n}={\sqrt {n}}(\mathbb {P} _{n}-P)\rightsquigarrow \mathbb {G} ,\quad {\text{in }}\ell ^{\infty }({\mathcal {F}})} In the former case F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called Glivenko–Cantelli class, and in the latter case (under the assumption ∀ x , sup f ∈ F | f ( x ) − P f | < ∞ {\displaystyle \forall x,\sup \nolimits _{f\in {\mathcal {F}}}\vert f(x)-Pf\vert <\infty } ) the class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is called Donsker or P-Donsker. A Donsker class is Glivenko–Cantelli in probability by an application of Slutsky's theorem. These statements are true for a single f {\displaystyle f} , by standard LLN, CLT arguments under regularity conditions, and the difficulty in the Empirical Processes comes in because joint statements are being made for all f ∈ F {\displaystyle f\in {\mathcal {F}}} . Intuitively then, the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} cannot be too large, and as it turns out that the geometry of F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} plays a very important role. One way of measuring how big the function set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is to use the so-called covering numbers. The covering number N ( ε , F , ‖ ⋅ ‖ ) {\displaystyle N(\varepsilon ,{\mathcal {F}},\|\cdot \|)} is the minimal number of balls { g : ‖ g − f ‖ < ε } {\displaystyle \{g:\|g-f\|<\varepsilon \}} needed to cover the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} (here it is obviously assumed that there is an underlying norm on F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} ). The entropy is the logarithm of the covering number. Two sufficient conditions are provided below, under which it can be proved that the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is Glivenko–Cantelli or Donsker. A class F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is P-Glivenko–Cantelli if it is P-measurable with envelope F such that P ∗ F < ∞ {\displaystyle P^{\ast }F<\infty } and satisfies: ∀ ε > 0 sup Q N ( ε ‖ F ‖ Q , F , L 1 ( Q ) ) < ∞ . {\displaystyle \forall \varepsilon >0\quad \sup \nolimits _{Q}N(\varepsilon \|F\|_{Q},{\mathcal {F}},L_{1}(Q))<\infty .} The next condition is a version of Dudley's theorem. If F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is a class of functions such that ∫ 0 ∞ sup Q log ⁡ N ( ε ‖ F ‖ Q , 2 , F , L 2 ( Q ) ) d ε < ∞ {\displaystyle \int _{0}^{\infty }\sup \nolimits _{Q}{\sqrt {\log N\left(\varepsilon \|F\|_{Q,2},{\mathcal {F}},L_{2}(Q)\right)}}d\varepsilon <\infty } then F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} is P-Donsker for every probability measure P such that P ∗ F 2 < ∞ {\displaystyle P^{\ast }F^{2}<\infty } . In the last integral, the notation means ‖ f ‖ Q , 2 = ( ∫ | f | 2 d Q ) 1 2 {\displaystyle \|f\|_{Q,2}=\left(\int |f|^{2}dQ\right)^{\frac {1}{2}}} . === Symmetrization === The majority of the arguments about how to bound the empirical process rely on symmetrization, maximal and concentration inequalities, and chaining. Symmetrization is usually the first step of the proofs, and since it is used in many machine learning proofs on bounding empirical loss functions (including the proof of the VC inequality which is discussed in the next section). It is presented here: Consider the empirical process: f ↦ ( P n − P ) f = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( f ( X i ) − P f ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto (\mathbb {P} _{n}-P)f={\dfrac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(f(X_{i})-Pf)} Turns out that there is a connection between the empirical and the following symmetrized process: f ↦ P n 0 f = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ε i f ( X i ) {\displaystyle f\mapsto \mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}f={\dfrac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\varepsilon _{i}f(X_{i})} The symmetrized process is a Rademacher process, conditionally on the data X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} . Therefore, it is a sub-Gaussian process by Hoeffding's inequality. Lemma (Symmetrization). For every nondecreasing, convex Φ: R → R and class of measurable functions F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} , E Φ ( ‖ P n − P ‖ F ) ≤ E Φ ( 2 ‖ P n 0 ‖ F ) {\displaystyle \mathbb {E} \Phi (\|\mathbb {P} _{n}-P\|_{\mathcal {F}})\leq \mathbb {E} \Phi \left(2\left\|\mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}\right\|_{\mathcal {F}}\right)} The proof of the Symmetrization lemma relies on introducing independent copies of the original variables X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} (sometimes referred to as a ghost sample) and replacing the inner expectation of the LHS by these copies. After an application of Jensen's inequality different signs could be introduced (hence the name symmetrization) without changing the expectation. The proof can be found below because of its instructive nature. The same proof method can be used to prove the Glivenko–Cantelli theorem. A typical way of proving empirical CLTs, first uses symmetrization to pass the empirical process to P n 0 {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} _{n}^{0}} and then argue conditionally on the data, using the fact that Rademacher processes are simple processes with nice properties. === VC Connection === It turns out that there is a fascinating connection between certain combinatorial properties of the set F {\displaystyle {\mathcal {F}}} and the entropy numbers. Uniform covering numbers can be controlled by the notion of Vapnik–Chervonenkis classes of sets – or shortly VC sets. Consider a collection C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} of subsets of the sample space X {\displaystyle
Read more →
IBM Watsonx

Watsonx is a platform by IBM for building and managing artificial intelligence (AI) applications for business use. Released on May 9, 2023, the platform provides software tools and infrastructure for companies to work with both IBM's own AI models and models from third-party sources. The platform consists of three main components: watsonx.ai, a studio for training, validating, and deploying AI models; watsonx.data, a system for storing and managing data used by the models; and watsonx.governance, a toolkit to ensure AI applications are compliant with company policies and regulations. A key feature of the platform is that it can be trained on a company's private data to perform specialized tasks, a process known as fine-tuning. IBM states that this client-specific data is not used to train its own models. == History == Watsonx was introduced on May 9, 2023, at the annual IBM Think conference, as a platform that includes multiple services. Just like Watson AI computer with the similar name, Watsonx was named after Thomas J. Watson, IBM's founder and first CEO. On February 13, 2024, Anaconda partnered with IBM to embed its open-source Python packages into Watsonx. Watsonx is used at ESPN's Fantasy Football App for managing players' performance, and by Italian telecommunications company Wind Tre. It was employed to generate editorial content around nominees during the 66th Annual Grammy Awards. In 2025, Wimbledon integrated IBM watsonx generative AI into its app and website. Integrated with IBM Safer Payments, IBM watsonx has been used in banking sector fraud detection and anti-money laundering (AML) systems. == Services == === watsonx.ai === Watsonx.ai is a platform that allows AI developers to leverage a wide range of LLMs under IBM's own Granite series and others such as Facebook's LLaMA-2, free and open-source model Mistral, and many others present in the Hugging Face community. These models come pre-trained and optimized for various natural language processing (NLP) applications.The platform also allows fine-tuning with its Tuning Studio. === watsonx.data === Watsonx.data is a platform designed to assist clients in addressing issues related to data volume, complexity, cost, and governance.. The platform facilitates seamless data access, whether stored in the cloud or on-premises, through a single entry point. === watsonx.governance === Watsonx.governance is a platform that utilizes IBM's AI capabilities to implement AI lifecycle governance. This helps them manage risks and maintain compliance with evolving AI and industry regulations, while reducing AI bias through automated oversight.
Read more →
ELIZA

ELIZA is an early natural language processing computer program developed from 1964 to 1967 at MIT by Joseph Weizenbaum. Created to explore communication between humans and machines, ELIZA simulated conversation by using a pattern matching and substitution methodology that gave users an illusion of understanding on the part of the program, but gave no response that could be considered really understanding what was being said by either party. Whereas the ELIZA program itself was written (originally) in MAD-SLIP, the pattern matching directives that contained most of its language capability were provided in separate "scripts", represented in a Lisp-like expression. The most famous script, DOCTOR, simulated a psychotherapist of the Rogerian school (in which the therapist often reflects back the patient's words to the patient), and used rules, dictated in the script, to respond with non-directional questions to user inputs. As such, ELIZA was one of the first chatbots (originally "chatterbots") and one of the first programs capable of attempting the Turing test. Weizenbaum intended the program as a method to explore communication between humans and machines. He was surprised that some people, including his secretary, attributed human-like feelings to the computer program, a phenomenon that came to be called the ELIZA effect. Many academics believed that the program would be able to positively influence the lives of many people, particularly those with psychological issues, and that it could aid doctors working on such patients' treatment. While ELIZA was capable of engaging in discourse, it could not converse with true understanding. However, many early users were convinced of ELIZA's intelligence and understanding, despite Weizenbaum's insistence to the contrary. The original ELIZA source code had been missing since its creation in the 1960s, as it was not common to publish articles that included source code at that time. However, more recently the MAD-SLIP source code was discovered in the MIT archives and published on various platforms, such as the Internet Archive. The source code is of high historical interest since it demonstrates not only the specificity of programming languages and techniques at that time, but also the beginning of software layering and abstraction as a means of achieving sophisticated software programming. == Overview == Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA, running the DOCTOR script, created a conversational interaction somewhat similar to what might take place in the office of "a [non-directive] psychotherapist in an initial psychiatric interview" and to "demonstrate that the communication between man and machine was superficial". While ELIZA is best known for acting in the manner of a psychotherapist, the speech patterns are due to the data and instructions supplied by the DOCTOR script. ELIZA itself examined the text for keywords, applied values to said keywords, and transformed the input into an output; the script that ELIZA ran determined the keywords, set the values of keywords, and set the rules of transformation for the output. Weizenbaum chose to make the DOCTOR script in the context of psychotherapy to "sidestep the problem of giving the program a data base of real-world knowledge", allowing it to reflect back the patient's statements to carry the conversation forward. The result was a somewhat intelligent-seeming response that reportedly deceived some early users of the program. Weizenbaum named his program ELIZA after Eliza Doolittle, a working-class character in George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion (also appearing in the musical My Fair Lady, which was based on the play and was hugely popular at the time). According to Weizenbaum, ELIZA's ability to be "incrementally improved" by various users made it similar to Eliza Doolittle, since Eliza Doolittle was taught to speak with an upper-class accent in Shaw's play. However, unlike the human character in Shaw's play, ELIZA is incapable of learning new patterns of speech or new words through interaction alone. Edits must be made directly to ELIZA's active script in order to change the manner by which the program operates. Weizenbaum first implemented ELIZA in his own SLIP list-processing language, where, depending upon the initial entries by the user, the illusion of human intelligence could appear, or be dispelled through several interchanges. Some of ELIZA's responses were so convincing that Weizenbaum and several others have anecdotes of users becoming emotionally attached to the program, occasionally forgetting that they were conversing with a computer. Weizenbaum's own secretary reportedly asked Weizenbaum to leave the room so that she and ELIZA could have a real conversation. Weizenbaum was surprised by this, later writing: "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." In 1966, interactive computing (via a teletype) was new. It was 11 years before the personal computer became familiar to the general public, and three decades before most people encountered attempts at natural language processing in Internet services like Ask.com or PC help systems such as Microsoft Office Clippit. Although those programs included years of research and work, ELIZA remains a milestone because it was the first time a programmer had attempted such a human-machine interaction with the goal of creating the illusion (however brief) of human–human interaction. At the ICCC 1972, ELIZA was brought together with another early artificial-intelligence program named PARRY for a computer-only conversation. While ELIZA was built to speak as a doctor, PARRY was intended to simulate a patient with schizophrenia. == Design and implementation == Weizenbaum originally wrote ELIZA in MAD-SLIP for CTSS on an IBM 7094 as a program to make natural-language conversation possible with a computer. To accomplish this, Weizenbaum identified five "fundamental technical problems" for ELIZA to overcome: the identification of key words, the discovery of a minimal context, the choice of appropriate transformations, the generation of responses in the absence of key words, and the provision of an editing capability for ELIZA scripts. Weizenbaum solved these problems and made ELIZA such that it had no built-in contextual framework or universe of discourse. However, this required ELIZA to have a script of instructions on how to respond to inputs from users. ELIZA starts its process of responding to an input by a user by first examining the text input for a "keyword". A "keyword" is a word designated as important by the acting ELIZA script, which assigns to each keyword a precedence number, or a RANK, designed by the programmer. If such words are found, they are put into a "keystack", with the keyword of the highest RANK at the top. The input sentence is then manipulated and transformed as the rule associated with the keyword of the highest RANK directs. For example, when the DOCTOR script encounters words such as "alike" or "same", it would output a message pertaining to similarity, in this case "In what way?", as these words had high precedence number. This also demonstrates how certain words, as dictated by the script, can be manipulated regardless of contextual considerations, such as switching first-person pronouns and second-person pronouns and vice versa, as these too had high precedence numbers. Such words with high precedence numbers are deemed superior to conversational patterns and are treated independently of contextual patterns. Following the first examination, the next step of the process is to apply an appropriate transformation rule, which includes two parts: the "decomposition rule" and the "reassembly rule". First, the input is reviewed for syntactical patterns in order to establish the minimal context necessary to respond. Using the keywords and other nearby words from the input, different disassembly rules are tested until an appropriate pattern is found. Using the script's rules, the sentence is then "dismantled" and arranged into sections of the component parts as the "decomposition rule for the highest-ranking keyword" dictates. The example that Weizenbaum gives is the input "You are very helpful", which is transformed to "I are very helpful". This is then broken into (1) empty (2) "I" (3) "are" (4) "very helpful". The decomposition rule has broken the phrase into four small segments that contain both the keywords and the information in the sentence. The decomposition rule then designates a particular reassembly rule, or set of reassembly rules, to follow when reconstructing the sentence. The reassembly rule takes the fragments of the input that the decomposition rule had created, rearranges them, and adds in programmed words to create a response. Using Weizenbaum's example previously stated, such a reassembly rule would take the fragments and apply them to the phrase "What makes
Read more →
LPBoost

Linear Programming Boosting (LPBoost) is a supervised classifier from the boosting family of classifiers. LPBoost maximizes a margin between training samples of different classes, and thus also belongs to the class of margin classifier algorithms. Consider a classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } , {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\},} which classifies samples from a space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} into one of two classes, labelled 1 and -1, respectively. LPBoost is an algorithm for learning such a classification function, given a set of training examples with known class labels. LPBoost is a machine learning technique especially suited for joint classification and feature selection in structured domains. == LPBoost overview == As in all boosting classifiers, the final classification function is of the form f ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 J α j h j ( x ) , {\displaystyle f({\boldsymbol {x}})=\sum _{j=1}^{J}\alpha _{j}h_{j}({\boldsymbol {x}}),} where α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} are non-negative weightings for weak classifiers h j : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h_{j}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} . Each individual weak classifier h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} may be just a little bit better than random, but the resulting linear combination of many weak classifiers can perform very well. LPBoost constructs f {\displaystyle f} by starting with an empty set of weak classifiers. Iteratively, a single weak classifier to add to the set of considered weak classifiers is selected, added and all the weights α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} for the current set of weak classifiers are adjusted. This is repeated until no weak classifiers to add remain. The property that all classifier weights are adjusted in each iteration is known as totally-corrective property. Early boosting methods, such as AdaBoost do not have this property and converge slower. == Linear program == More generally, let H = { h ( ⋅ ; ω ) | ω ∈ Ω } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}=\{h(\cdot ;\omega )|\omega \in \Omega \}} be the possibly infinite set of weak classifiers, also termed hypotheses. One way to write down the problem LPBoost solves is as a linear program with infinitely many variables. The primal linear program of LPBoost, optimizing over the non-negative weight vector α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} , the non-negative vector ξ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}} of slack variables and the margin ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is the following. min α , ξ , ρ − ρ + D ∑ n = 1 ℓ ξ n sb.t. ∑ ω ∈ Ω y n α ω h ( x n ; ω ) + ξ n ≥ ρ , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ ω ∈ Ω α ω = 1 , ξ n ≥ 0 , n = 1 , … , ℓ , α ω ≥ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , ρ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\alpha }},{\boldsymbol {\xi }},\rho }{\min }}&-\rho +D\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\xi _{n}\\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }y_{n}\alpha _{\omega }h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )+\xi _{n}\geq \rho ,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }\alpha _{\omega }=1,\\&\xi _{n}\geq 0,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\alpha _{\omega }\geq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&\rho \in {\mathbb {R} }.\end{array}}} Note the effects of slack variables ξ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}\geq 0} : their one-norm is penalized in the objective function by a constant factor D {\displaystyle D} , which—if small enough—always leads to a primal feasible linear program. Here we adopted the notation of a parameter space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , such that for a choice ω ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega \in \Omega } the weak classifier h ( ⋅ ; ω ) : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ):{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} is uniquely defined. When the above linear program was first written down in early publications about boosting methods it was disregarded as intractable due to the large number of variables α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} . Only later it was discovered that such linear programs can indeed be solved efficiently using the classic technique of column generation. === Column generation for LPBoost === In a linear program a column corresponds to a primal variable. Column generation is a technique to solve large linear programs. It typically works in a restricted problem, dealing only with a subset of variables. By generating primal variables iteratively and on-demand, eventually the original unrestricted problem with all variables is recovered. By cleverly choosing the columns to generate the problem can be solved such that while still guaranteeing the obtained solution to be optimal for the original full problem, only a small fraction of columns has to be created. ==== LPBoost dual problem ==== Columns in the primal linear program corresponds to rows in the dual linear program. The equivalent dual linear program of LPBoost is the following linear program. max λ , γ γ sb.t. ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n + γ ≤ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , 0 ≤ λ n ≤ D , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ n = 1 ℓ λ n = 1 , γ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\lambda }},\gamma }{\max }}&\gamma \\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&0\leq \lambda _{n}\leq D,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\lambda _{n}=1,\\&\gamma \in \mathbb {R} .\end{array}}} For linear programs the optimal value of the primal and dual problem are equal. For the above primal and dual problems, the optimal value is equal to the negative 'soft margin'. The soft margin is the size of the margin separating positive from negative training instances minus positive slack variables that carry penalties for margin-violating samples. Thus, the soft margin may be positive although not all samples are linearly separated by the classification function. The latter is called the 'hard margin' or 'realized margin'. ==== Convergence criterion ==== Consider a subset of the satisfied constraints in the dual problem. For any finite subset we can solve the linear program and thus satisfy all constraints. If we could prove that of all the constraints which we did not add to the dual problem no single constraint is violated, we would have proven that solving our restricted problem is equivalent to solving the original problem. More formally, let γ ∗ {\displaystyle \gamma ^{}} be the optimal objective function value for any restricted instance. Then, we can formulate a search problem for the 'most violated constraint' in the original problem space, namely finding ω ∗ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega ^{}\in \Omega } as ω ∗ = argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n . {\displaystyle \omega ^{}={\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}.} That is, we search the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for a single decision stump h ( ⋅ ; ω ∗ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ^{})} maximizing the left hand side of the dual constraint. If the constraint cannot be violated by any choice of decision stump, none of the corresponding constraint can be active in the original problem and the restricted problem is equivalent. ==== Penalization constant ==== D {\displaystyle D} The positive value of penalization constant D {\displaystyle D} has to be found using model selection techniques. However, if we choose D = 1 ℓ ν {\displaystyle D={\frac {1}{\ell \nu }}} , where ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } is the number of training samples and 0 < ν < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\nu <1} , then the new parameter ν {\displaystyle \nu } has the following properties. ν {\displaystyle \nu } is an upper bound on the fraction of training errors; that is, if k {\displaystyle k} denotes the number of misclassified training samples, then k ℓ ≤ ν {\displaystyle {\frac {k}{\ell }}\leq \nu } . ν {\displaystyle \nu } is a lower bound on the fraction of training samples outside or on the margin. == Algorithm == Input: Training set X = { x 1 , … , x ℓ } {\displaystyle X=\{{\boldsymbol {x}}_{1},\dots ,{\boldsymbol {x}}_{\ell }\}} , x i ∈ X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}\in {\mathcal {X}}} Training labels Y = { y 1 , … , y ℓ } {\displaystyle Y=\{y_{1},\dots ,y_{\ell }\}} , y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} Convergence threshold θ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \theta \geq 0} Output: Classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} Initialization Weights, uniform λ n ← 1 ℓ , n = 1 , … , ℓ {\displaystyle \lambda _{n}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{\ell }},\quad n=1,\dots ,\ell } Edge γ ← 0 {\displaystyle \gamma \leftarrow 0} Hypothesis count J ← 1 {\displaystyle J\leftarrow 1} Iterate h ^ ← argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}\leftarrow {\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}} if ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ^ ( x n ) λ n + γ ≤ θ {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}{\hat {h}}({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n})\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq \theta } then break h J ← h ^ {\displaystyle h_{J}\leftarrow {\hat {h}}} J
Read more →
Transkribus

Transkribus is a platform for the text recognition, image analysis and structure recognition of historical documents. The platform was created in the context of the two EU projects "tranScriptorium" (2013–2015) and "READ" (Recognition and Enrichment of Archival Documents – 2016–2019). It was developed by the University of Innsbruck. Since July 1, 2019 the platform has been directed and further developed by the READ-COOP, a non-profit cooperative. The platform integrates tools developed by research groups throughout Europe, including the Pattern Recognition and Human Language Technology (PRHLT) group of the Technical University of Valencia and the Computational Intelligence Technology Lab (CITlab) group of University of Rostock. Comparable programs that offer similar functions are eScriptorium and OCR4All.
Read more →
Semantic mapping (statistics)

Semantic mapping (SM) is a statistical method for dimensionality reduction (the transformation of data from a high-dimensional space into a low-dimensional space). SM can be used in a set of multidimensional vectors of features to extract a few new features that preserves the main data characteristics. SM performs dimensionality reduction by clustering the original features in semantic clusters and combining features mapped in the same cluster to generate an extracted feature. Given a data set, this method constructs a projection matrix that can be used to map a data element from a high-dimensional space into a reduced dimensional space. SM can be applied in construction of text mining and information retrieval systems, as well as systems managing vectors of high dimensionality. SM is an alternative to random mapping, principal components analysis and latent semantic indexing methods.
Read more →
Video browsing

Video browsing, also known as exploratory video search, is the interactive process of skimming through video content in order to satisfy some information need or to interactively check if the video content is relevant. While originally proposed to help users inspecting a single video through visual thumbnails, modern video browsing tools enable users to quickly find desired information in a video archive by iterative human–computer interaction through an exploratory search approach. Many of these tools presume a smart user that wants features to interactively inspect video content, as well as automatic content filtering features. For that purpose, several video interaction features are usually provided, such as sophisticated navigation in video or search by a content-based query. Video browsing tools often build on lower-level video content analysis, such as shot transition detection, keyframe extraction, semantic concept detection, and create a structured content overview of the video file or video archive. Furthermore, they usually provide sophisticated navigation features, such as advanced timelines, visual seeker bars or a list of selected thumbnails, as well as means for content querying. Examples of content queries are shot filtering through visual concepts (e.g., only shots showing cars), through some specific characteristics (e.g., color or motion filtering), through user-provided sketches (e.g., a visually drawn sketch), or through content-based similarity search. == History == Video browsing was originally proposed by Iranian engineer Farshid Arman, Taiwanese computer scientist Arding Hsu, and computer scientist Ming-Yee Chiu, while working at Siemens, and it was presented at the ACM International Conference in August 1993. They described a shot detection algorithm for compressed video that was originally encoded with discrete cosine transform (DCT) video coding standards such as JPEG, MPEG and H.26x. The basic idea was that, since the DCT coefficients are mathematically related to the spatial domain and represent the content of each frame, they can be used to detect the differences between video frames. In the algorithm, a subset of blocks in a frame and a subset of DCT coefficients for each block are used as motion vector representation for the frame. By operating on compressed DCT representations, the algorithm significantly reduces the computational requirements for decompression and enables effective video browsing. The algorithm represents separate shots of a video sequence by an r-frame, a thumbnail of the shot framed by a motion tracking region. A variation of this concept was later adopted for QBIC video content mosaics, where each r-frame is a salient still from the shot it represents. === Video Notebook === Modern video browsing solutions include Video Notebook, a Menlo Park startup founded in 2021 by Mike Lanza, which uses computer vision to extract slides and optical character recognition and speech recognition to facilitate video search. The software can be either used on the client side (using a browser extension), where the slides and text are extracted while the video is watched (e.g. on a video platform like YouTube or Udemy), or on the server side. Processed videos, which can be viewed in the Video Notebook web app, feature a video browsing user interface with extracted timestamped slides, a search bar for querying the video (or a collection of videos), and text chapters. Video Notebook customers include organisations like Ernst & Young. === Video Browser Showdown === The Video Browser Showdown (VBS) is an annual live evaluation competition for exploratory video search tools, where international researchers use video browsing tools to solve ad-hoc video search tasks on a moderately large data set as fast as possible. The main goal of the VBS, which started in 2012 at the International Conference on MultiMedia Modeling (MMM), is to advance the performance of video browsing tools. Since 2016, the VBS also collaborates with TRECVID. The aim of the VBS is to evaluate video browsing tools for efficiency at known-item search (KIS) tasks with a well-defined data set in direct comparison to other tools.
Read more →
NOMINATE (scaling method)

NOMINATE (an acronym for nominal three-step estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States). As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." == Procedure == The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures, all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome. Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress in 2007. In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." == Dimensions == Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. == Interpretation of nominate scores == For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel: Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995: On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns: == Political ideology == DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. == Political polarization == Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics") have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congress
Read more →
Defining length

In the field of genetic algorithms, a schema (plural: schemata) is a template that represents a subset of potential solutions. These templates use fixed symbols (e.g., `0` or `1`) for specific positions and a wildcard or "don't care" symbol (often `#` or ``) for others. The defining length of a schema, denoted as L(H), measures the distance between the outermost fixed positions in the template. According to the Schema theorem, a schema with a shorter defining length is less likely to be disrupted by the genetic operator of crossover. As a result, short schemata are considered more robust and are more likely to be propagated to the next generation. In genetic programming, where solutions are often represented as trees, the defining length is the number of links in the minimum tree fragment that includes all the non-wildcard symbols within a schema H. == Example == The defining length is calculated by subtracting the position of the first fixed symbol from the position of the last one. Using 1-based indexing for a string of length 5: The schema `1##0#` has its first fixed symbol (`1`) at position 1 and its last fixed symbol (`0`) at position 4. Its defining length is 4 − 1 = 3. The schema `00##0` has its first fixed symbol at position 1 and its last at position 5. Its defining length is 5 − 1 = 4. The schema `##0##` has only one fixed symbol at position 3. The first and last fixed positions are the same, so its defining length is 3 − 3 = 0.
Read more →
Types of artificial neural networks

Types of neural networks (NN) include a family of techniques. The simplest types have static components, including number of units, number of layers, unit weights and topology. Dynamic NNs evolve via learning. Some types allow/require learning to be "supervised" by the operator, while others operate independently. Some types operate purely in hardware, while others are purely software and run on general purpose computers. The main types are: Transformers: these use attention to analyze every token in the input stream against every other token in the stream. That technique has enabled neural networks to reach the general public via chatbots, code generators and many other forms. Convolutional neural networks (CNN): a FNN that uses kernels and regularization to evade problems in prior generations of NNs. They are typically used to analyze visual and other two-dimensional data. Generative adversarial networks set networks (of varying structure) against each other, each trying to push the other(s) to produce better results such as winning a game or to deceive the opponent about the authenticity of an input. == Feedforward == In feedforward neural networks the information moves from the input to output directly in every layer. There can be hidden layers with or without cycles/loops to sequence inputs. Feedforward networks can be constructed with various types of units, such as binary McCulloch–Pitts neurons, the simplest of which is the perceptron. Continuous neurons, frequently with sigmoidal activation, are used in the context of backpropagation. == Group method of data handling == The Group Method of Data Handling (GMDH) features fully automatic structural and parametric model optimization. The node activation functions are Kolmogorov–Gabor polynomials that permit additions and multiplications. It uses a deep multilayer perceptron with eight layers. It is a supervised learning network that grows layer by layer, where each layer is trained by regression analysis. Useless items are detected using a validation set, and pruned through regularization. The size and depth of the resulting network depends on the task. == Autoencoder == An autoencoder, autoassociator or Diabolo network is similar to the multilayer perceptron (MLP) – with an input layer, an output layer and one or more hidden layers connecting them. However, the output layer has the same number of units as the input layer. Its purpose is to reconstruct its own inputs (instead of emitting a target value). Therefore, autoencoders are unsupervised learning models. An autoencoder is used for unsupervised learning of efficient codings, typically for the purpose of dimensionality reduction and for learning generative models of data. == Probabilistic == A probabilistic neural network (PNN) is a four-layer feedforward neural network. The layers are Input, hidden pattern, hidden summation, and output. In the PNN algorithm, the parent probability distribution function (PDF) of each class is approximated by a Parzen window and a non-parametric function. Then, using PDF of each class, the class probability of a new input is estimated and Bayes’ rule is employed to allocate it to the class with the highest posterior probability. It was derived from the Bayesian network and a statistical algorithm called Kernel Fisher discriminant analysis. It is used for classification and pattern recognition. == Time delay == A time delay neural network (TDNN) is a feedforward architecture for sequential data that recognizes features independent of sequence position. In order to achieve time-shift invariance, delays are added to the input so that multiple data points (points in time) are analyzed together. It usually forms part of a larger pattern recognition system. It has been implemented using a perceptron network whose connection weights were trained with back propagation (supervised learning). == Convolutional == A convolutional neural network (CNN, or ConvNet or shift invariant or space invariant) is a class of deep network, composed of one or more convolutional layers with fully connected layers (matching those in typical ANNs) on top. It uses tied weights and pooling layers. In particular, max-pooling. It is often structured via Fukushima's convolutional architecture. They are variations of multilayer perceptrons that use minimal preprocessing. This architecture allows CNNs to take advantage of the 2D structure of input data. Its unit connectivity pattern is inspired by the organization of the visual cortex. Units respond to stimuli in a restricted region of space known as the receptive field. Receptive fields partially overlap, over-covering the entire visual field. Unit response can be approximated mathematically by a convolution operation. CNNs are suitable for processing visual and other two-dimensional data. They have shown superior results in both image and speech applications. They can be trained with standard backpropagation. CNNs are easier to train than other regular, deep, feed-forward neural networks and have many fewer parameters to estimate. Capsule Neural Networks (CapsNet) add structures called capsules to a CNN and reuse output from several capsules to form more stable (with respect to various perturbations) representations. Examples of applications in computer vision include DeepDream and robot navigation. They have wide applications in image and video recognition, recommender systems and natural language processing. == Deep stacking network == A deep stacking network (DSN) (deep convex network) is based on a hierarchy of blocks of simplified neural network modules. It was introduced in 2011 by Deng and Yu. It formulates the learning as a convex optimization problem with a closed-form solution, emphasizing the mechanism's similarity to stacked generalization. Each DSN block is a simple module that is easy to train by itself in a supervised fashion without backpropagation for the entire blocks. Each block consists of a simplified multi-layer perceptron (MLP) with a single hidden layer. The hidden layer h has logistic sigmoidal units, and the output layer has linear units. Connections between these layers are represented by weight matrix U; input-to-hidden-layer connections have weight matrix W. Target vectors t form the columns of matrix T, and the input data vectors x form the columns of matrix X. The matrix of hidden units is H = σ ( W T X ) {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {H}}=\sigma ({\boldsymbol {W}}^{T}{\boldsymbol {X}})} . Modules are trained in order, so lower-layer weights W are known at each stage. The function performs the element-wise logistic sigmoid operation. Each block estimates the same final label class y, and its estimate is concatenated with original input X to form the expanded input for the next block. Thus, the input to the first block contains the original data only, while downstream blocks' input adds the output of preceding blocks. Then learning the upper-layer weight matrix U given other weights in the network can be formulated as a convex optimization problem: min U T f = ‖ U T H − T ‖ F 2 , {\displaystyle \min _{U^{T}}f=\|{\boldsymbol {U}}^{T}{\boldsymbol {H}}-{\boldsymbol {T}}\|_{F}^{2},} which has a closed-form solution. Unlike other deep architectures, such as DBNs, the goal is not to discover the transformed feature representation. The structure of the hierarchy of this kind of architecture makes parallel learning straightforward, as a batch-mode optimization problem. In purely discriminative tasks, DSNs outperform conventional DBNs. === Tensor deep stacking networks === This architecture is a DSN extension. It offers two important improvements: it uses higher-order information from covariance statistics, and it transforms the non-convex problem of a lower-layer to a convex sub-problem of an upper-layer. TDSNs use covariance statistics in a bilinear mapping from each of two distinct sets of hidden units in the same layer to predictions, via a third-order tensor. While parallelization and scalability are not considered seriously in conventional DNNs, all learning for DSNs and TDSNs is done in batch mode, to allow parallelization. Parallelization allows scaling the design to larger (deeper) architectures and data sets. The basic architecture is suitable for diverse tasks such as classification and regression. == Physics-informed == Such a neural network is designed for the numerical solution of mathematical equations, such as differential, integral, delay, fractional and others. As input parameters, PINN accepts variables (spatial, temporal, and others), transmits them through the network block. At the output, it produces an approximate solution and substitutes it into the mathematical model, considering the initial and boundary conditions. If the solution does not satisfy the required accuracy, one uses the backpropagation and rectify the solution. Besides PINN, other architectures have been developed to produce surrogate models for scientific comput
Read more →
NNDB

The Notable Names Database (NNDB) is an online database of biographical details of over 40,000 people. Soylent Communications, a sole proprietorship that also hosted the later defunct Rotten.com, describes NNDB as an "intelligence aggregator" of noteworthy persons, highlighting their interpersonal connections. The Rotten.com domain was registered in 1996 by former Apple and Netscape software engineer Thomas E. Dell, who was also known by his internet alias, "Soylent". == Entries == Each entry has an executive summary followed by a brief narrative about their life. It also lists date and cause of death if deceased. Businesspeople and government officials are listed with chronologies of their posts, positions, and board memberships. As of 2022, the site is no longer updated. == NNDB Mapper == The NNDB Mapper, a visual tool for exploring connections between people, was made available in May 2008. It required Adobe Flash 7.
Read more →
Multidimensional analysis

In statistics, econometrics and related fields, multidimensional analysis (MDA) is a data analysis process that groups data into two categories: data dimensions and measurements. For example, a data set consisting of the number of wins for a single football team at each of several years is a single-dimensional (in this case, longitudinal) data set. A data set consisting of the number of wins for several football teams in a single year is also a single-dimensional (in this case, cross-sectional) data set. A data set consisting of the number of wins for several football teams over several years is a two-dimensional data set. == Higher dimensions == In many disciplines, two-dimensional data sets are also called panel data. While, strictly speaking, two- and higher-dimensional data sets are "multi-dimensional", the term "multidimensional" tends to be applied only to data sets with three or more dimensions. For example, some forecast data sets provide forecasts for multiple target periods, conducted by multiple forecasters, and made at multiple horizons. The three dimensions provide more information than can be gleaned from two-dimensional panel data sets. == Software == Computer software for MDA include Online analytical processing (OLAP) for data in relational databases, pivot tables for data in spreadsheets, and Array DBMSs for general multi-dimensional data (such as raster data) in science, engineering, and business.
Read more →
Stochastic block model

The stochastic block model is a generative model for random graphs. This model tends to produce graphs containing communities, subsets of nodes characterized by being connected with one another with particular edge densities. For example, edges may be more common within communities than between communities. Its mathematical formulation was first introduced in 1983 in the field of social network analysis by Paul W. Holland et al. The stochastic block model is important in statistics, machine learning, and network science, where it serves as a useful benchmark for the task of recovering community structure in graph data. == Definition == The stochastic block model takes the following parameters: The number n {\displaystyle n} of vertices; a partition of the vertex set { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \{1,\ldots ,n\}} into disjoint subsets C 1 , … , C r {\displaystyle C_{1},\ldots ,C_{r}} , called communities; a symmetric r × r {\displaystyle r\times r} matrix P {\displaystyle P} of edge probabilities. The edge set is then sampled at random as follows: any two vertices u ∈ C i {\displaystyle u\in C_{i}} and v ∈ C j {\displaystyle v\in C_{j}} are connected by an edge with probability P i j {\displaystyle P_{ij}} . An example problem is: given a graph with n {\displaystyle n} vertices, where the edges are sampled as described, recover the groups C 1 , … , C r {\displaystyle C_{1},\ldots ,C_{r}} . == Special cases == If the probability matrix is a constant, in the sense that P i j = p {\displaystyle P_{ij}=p} for all i , j {\displaystyle i,j} , then the result is the Erdős–Rényi model G ( n , p ) {\displaystyle G(n,p)} . This case is degenerate—the partition into communities becomes irrelevant—but it illustrates a close relationship to the Erdős–Rényi model. The planted partition model is the special case that the values of the probability matrix P {\displaystyle P} are a constant p {\displaystyle p} on the diagonal and another constant q {\displaystyle q} off the diagonal. Thus two vertices within the same community share an edge with probability p {\displaystyle p} , while two vertices in different communities share an edge with probability q {\displaystyle q} . Sometimes it is this restricted model that is called the stochastic block model. The case where p > q {\displaystyle p>q} is called an assortative model, while the case p < q {\displaystyle p P j k {\displaystyle P_{ii}>P_{jk}} whenever j ≠ k {\displaystyle j\neq k} : all diagonal entries dominate all off-diagonal entries. A model is called weakly assortative if P i i > P i j {\displaystyle P_{ii}>P_{ij}} whenever i ≠ j {\displaystyle i\neq j} : each diagonal entry is only required to dominate the rest of its own row and column. Disassortative forms of this terminology exist, by reversing all inequalities. For some algorithms, recovery might be easier for block models with assortative or disassortative conditions of this form. == Typical statistical tasks == Much of the literature on algorithmic community detection addresses three statistical tasks: detection, partial recovery, and exact recovery. === Detection === The goal of detection algorithms is simply to determine, given a sampled graph, whether the graph has latent community structure. More precisely, a graph might be generated, with some known prior probability, from a known stochastic block model, and otherwise from a similar Erdos-Renyi model. The algorithmic task is to correctly identify which of these two underlying models generated the graph. === Partial recovery === In partial recovery, the goal is to approximately determine the latent partition into communities, in the sense of finding a partition that is correlated with the true partition significantly better than a random guess. === Exact recovery === In exact recovery, the goal is to recover the latent partition into communities exactly. The community sizes and probability matrix may be known or unknown. == Statistical lower bounds and threshold behavior == Stochastic block models exhibit a sharp threshold effect reminiscent of percolation thresholds. Suppose that we allow the size n {\displaystyle n} of the graph to grow, keeping the community sizes in fixed proportions. If the probability matrix remains fixed, tasks such as partial and exact recovery become feasible for all non-degenerate parameter settings. However, if we scale down the probability matrix at a suitable rate as n {\displaystyle n} increases, we observe a sharp phase transition: for certain settings of the parameters, it will become possible to achieve recovery with probability tending to 1, whereas on the opposite side of the parameter threshold, the probability of recovery tends to 0 no matter what algorithm is used. For partial recovery, the appropriate scaling is to take P i j = P ~ i j / n {\displaystyle P_{ij}={\tilde {P}}_{ij}/n} for fixed P ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {P}}} , resulting in graphs of constant average degree. In the case of two equal-sized communities, in the assortative planted partition model with probability matrix P = ( p ~ / n q ~ / n q ~ / n p ~ / n ) , {\displaystyle P=\left({\begin{array}{cc}{\tilde {p}}/n&{\tilde {q}}/n\\{\tilde {q}}/n&{\tilde {p}}/n\end{array}}\right),} partial recovery is feasible with probability 1 − o ( 1 ) {\displaystyle 1-o(1)} whenever ( p ~ − q ~ ) 2 > 2 ( p ~ + q ~ ) {\displaystyle ({\tilde {p}}-{\tilde {q}})^{2}>2({\tilde {p}}+{\tilde {q}})} , whereas any estimator fails partial recovery with probability 1 − o ( 1 ) {\displaystyle 1-o(1)} whenever ( p ~ − q ~ ) 2 < 2 ( p ~ + q ~ ) {\displaystyle ({\tilde {p}}-{\tilde {q}})^{2}<2({\tilde {p}}+{\tilde {q}})} . For exact recovery, the appropriate scaling is to take P i j = P ~ i j log ⁡ n / n {\displaystyle P_{ij}={\tilde {P}}_{ij}\log n/n} , resulting in graphs of logarithmic average degree. Here a similar threshold exists: for the assortative planted partition model with r {\displaystyle r} equal-sized communities, the threshold lies at p ~ − q ~ = r {\displaystyle {\sqrt {\tilde {p}}}-{\sqrt {\tilde {q}}}={\sqrt {r}}} . In fact, the exact recovery threshold is known for the fully general stochastic block model. == Algorithms == In principle, exact recovery can be solved in its feasible range using maximum likelihood, but this amounts to solving a constrained or regularized cut problem such as minimum bisection that is typically NP-complete. Hence, no known efficient algorithms will correctly compute the maximum-likelihood estimate in the worst case. However, a wide variety of algorithms perform well in the average case, and many high-probability performance guarantees have been proven for algorithms in both the partial and exact recovery settings. Successful algorithms include spectral clustering of the vertices, semidefinite programming, forms of belief propagation, and community detection among others. == Variants == Several variants of the model exist. One minor tweak allocates vertices to communities randomly, according to a categorical distribution, rather than in a fixed partition. More significant variants include the degree-corrected stochastic block model, the hierarchical stochastic block model, the geometric block model, censored block model and the mixed-membership block model. == Topic models == Stochastic block model have been recognised to be a topic model on bipartite networks. In a network of documents and words, Stochastic block model can identify topics: group of words with a similar meaning. == Extensions to signed graphs == Signed graphs allow for both favorable and adverse relationships and serve as a common model choice for various data analysis applications, e.g., correlation clustering. The stochastic block model can be trivially extended to signed graphs by assigning both positive and negative edge weights or equivalently using a difference of adjacency matrices of two stochastic block models. == DARPA/MIT/AWS Graph Challenge: streaming stochastic block partition == GraphChallenge encourages community approaches to developing new solutions for analyzing graphs and sparse data derived from social media, sensor feeds, and scientific data to enable relationships between events to be discovered as they unfold in the field. Streaming stochastic block partition is one of the challenges since 2017. Spectral clustering has demonstrated outstanding performance compared to the original and even improved base algorithm, matching its quality of clusters while being multiple orders of magnitude faster.
Read more →